AFACT has already notched up a win in copyright case
- 11 October, 2009 09:00
- Comments (65)
The film studios and TV stations represented by the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) have already notched up a win in their civil case against Internet service provider, iiNet, whichever way you look at it.
AFACT has considerable runs on the board regardless of what happens at the outcome of the case, which will run for one more week in Sydney at the Federal Court of Australia, have two weeks off and return for a final two weeks.
How so? The media have debated the ins and outs of the case both on and offline and there is no doubt people are now, more than ever, aware of AFACT's goals and the issue of copyright infringement. A review of the country's copyright and telecommunications legislation is now possible, although not guaranteed. At the least, it will be addressed by the High Court of Australia once the loser of this round appeals the verdict.
That, in itself, is an arguably better result for AFACT than any multi-million dollar advertising campaign.
Not everyone likes what AFACT is doing — people have never taken well to big corporations lecturing them on copyright, particularly when the same companies rake in millions in profits.
But the studios have known this for some time and I suspect those sitting at the respective film studio boardroom tables factored this into their thinking. In short: they wouldn't really care if they annoyed a few more people by starting up this case and probably won't worry too much if they don't win. I don't think they seriously believe digital piracy will ever stop by taking these actions.
Few people in Australia, however, could argue they don’t know about the issue at hand after this week. People are now seriously debating the role of ISPs in helping stop the copyright theft that goes on in the digital realm. That mind share is worth its weight in gold for AFACT.
I'm not suggesting that I agree with the arguments on either side of the case — I'd rather wait to see what Justice Cowdroy or our esteemed judges at the High Court (if it is taken up the judicial chain at the end of this case) have to say.
But I do think the debate is one that needs to occur. I'd also argue we can now see the powers that be have to clarify the online copyright infringement mess and uncertainty surrounding the role of ISPs in this regard.
Would we have had this discussion without the case? Perhaps, but definitely not with the ferociousness it has now gripped the IT industry and wider community.
And that is certainly a win for the film studios and TV stations. They may lose this round and have to fork out legal expenses but that is a drop in the financial bucket for the dozens of film studios and TV stations taking part.
- Bookmark this page
- Share this article
- Got more on this story? Email Computerworld
- Follow Computerworld on twitter
-
Overtaken by Events? The Quest for Operational Responsiveness | A Survey of Global Energy, Telecoms, and Logistics Businesses
-
Data Profiling, Data Integration and Data Quality: The Pillars of Master Data Management
-
The Pathways ICT Leadership Development Program | Turning today’s ICT professionals into tomorrow’s business leaders
-
3G Handset and Network Design
-
Professional Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Administration
-
Origin Like Water, An
-
Mission-critical Security Planner
-
High-speed Networking
-
Professional ADO.NET 3.5 with Linq and the Entity Framework
-
SQL Server 2005 Bible
-
Improving Data Warehouse and Business Information Quality
-
The Data Modeling Handbook
Comments
ubiquitous1980
I do not like illegal copying of copyrighted material, but please do not use the term piracy. The term piracy invokes images of taking over ships and burning them to the ocean.
Anonymous
True, but at the same time, heaps more people are finding out about http://piratebay.org as well. :)
Anonymous
The printing press and making copies of any books, including the bible was also illegal punishable by death in the 1500s. Studios and other groups need to match the cost and a realistic profit margin to products, before there will be any in roads against piracy. There is no way in hell a ISP should be forced to govern the information highway.
Anonymous
I think many people will agree with this article. One thing is clear, regardless of which side's version of the case you adhere to, is that there are rivers of gold in the unmanaged content passing through ISPs at present that the ISPs are not harnessing. It seems curious that large commercial businesses, the ISPs, are happy just to charge their customers for 'access to the internet' rather than access to content. Hardly good customer service or commercially astute (unless of course you stuck in a case with the copyright owners I suppose).
greedo
ubiquitous go back to the 1800's please... thanks mate.
Anonymous
ok I have one for everybody...you say not to call it piracy right ? but what do you call companys that put out movies or anything eles....ig: anime...I like to watch things like this :D but when the counrty put it out for free the movie/tv/book companys jump on it and make it copy right ....THAT is PIRACY becouse when things like this comeout it is FREE FOR DOWNLOAD and to watch but when the yakkies or and oher counrty like us here...we have to take control of things and make it so you HAVE to pay for it EVEN when it came out for free where is the since and morel in that....and company call people that download things thiefs they should LOOK at them self first before pointing the fingers at other people or ISP...GET A LIFE YOU RICH COMPANYS tv/movies/and music you should all LOOK AT YOUR SELF BEFORE YOU SAY THINGS THAT MAY OR MAY not BE TRUE. cause i can nam 100 plus anime/music/ and tv shows that where free for all and you made it copy righted which it be comes NOT free....THATS STEALING black and white NO grey......
Anonymous
This on-the-fence opinion simply shows that the author really doesn't have a clue about the legal and technical issues of having ISP's as active gatekeepers for enforcing copyright law. There is no true debate, anyone who works on the operational end of this knows that's it's technically infeasible, strategically ineffective and legally nonsensical to expect ISPs to 'police' customers content to the level that content providers/copyright owners want.
No one has been able to draft an implementation which is both technical feasible and effective in regards to this issue.
I don't see how this case will cause a shifting of attitudes about the legislation that lobbyists couldn't have done already. AFACT hasn't won anything tangible or even intangible, this article is pointless.
I work in Digital Forensics and CompSec.
Anonymous
"I'd rather wait to see what Justice Cowdroy or our esteemed judges at the High Court (if it is taken up the judicial chain at the end of this case) have to say." Given that the esteemed judge appears to have as much comprehension of the nature of torrent technology as the average sheltered, cloistered overpaid legal good ol' boy it will be interesting to see if AFACT's ancient fantasy world business case and honeypot spying succeeds. At least we don't have the Swedish legal system where the esteemed judges appear to be an amateurish pack of industry association members waiting for pats on the head from the Hollywood and multinational spongers.
Anonymous
I think you miss the point - he's not talking about the technical or legal aspects at all. He's just saying afact has gotten heaps of people talking - and that's better than an anti-piracy add
Anonymous
Money can be made without having people pay for content, just look at free to air. Now imagine being able to distribute to a mass audience at a very low cost.
Adapt or die
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q
Anonymous
Money can be made without having people pay for content, just look at free to air. Now imagine being able to distribute to a mass audience at a very low cost.
Adapt or die
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxCoCTc3T5Q
Anonymous
iiNet really needs to say they will cut ALL acess to any of their copyright sites and files, and give free data to itunes etc MP3 sites etc even if they havn't paid for any lics
toaster
Walk into a music store and steal a cd or dvd. Wouldnt do it? You are every day using peer to peer software. A thief is a thief is a thief. Not taking action is condoning theft to our children, making it mainstream doesnt make it right. Ban it, and fine the internet providers AND the downloaders, heavily.
Hellfire
AFACT is wrong in bringing this action. Their members are responsible for policing and protecting their copyright not the ISPs. The have brought on this case because iNet will nor dicipline it's users when reported by AFACT. However to deny service on AFACT notice would leave iNet open to legal action because at this stage it is merely an unproven and unsupported accusation. AFACT should procede to charge the people with piracy before the courts and once they have a conviction then the ISP would be bound to deny service or suspend their account. AFACT is just looking for a scapegoat to do their copyright policework for them.
Telstra Sux
Hmmmm I view the WWW as the worlds greatest library; and it's brilliant.
But I am against the members of RFUKT rigging the copyright from ~30 years to ~120 years....
I am against them rigging hardware and software to spy on people (e.g. Microsoft and DRM).
I am also against them putting "regional locking" of DVD players etc., so that if I play an Aussie DVD, then a USA DVD twice it locks into ONLY playing the AUS DVD;
It also annoys me that 90% of the movie / instructional content on DVD is not available in Australia; hence read prior.
It also annoys me just how utterly disrespectful and cheap the free to air stations have become in regards to "fan shows" like Stargate Atlantis - where there is 10 minutes of solid and really shitty phone mobile porn or ring tone adds and 5 minutes of show; and the shows have no regular scheduling or congruency in the form of set seasons on air....
I am also dead against these "legitimate" interests screwing everyone for every cent, for oft' times, rather marginal products.
I am also against the lack of TRY thoroughly before you buy software - and "No refund once the packet is opened" scams.
I am also dead against the BIG LIE of how hard the file sharers make it for struggling artists; because pre internet; almost all bands and performers never went anywhere in the first place, and of the very few who cut albums, very few if any of them ever sold much - it's only the very very few that made squillions out of their albums.....
I have also worked out that FREE to AIR TV is the biggest con-job ever created; say if I can earn $40 an hour, then a 90 minute movie with 45 minutes of adds in it - well it's actually caused me LOST earning time, of $30 just to be fed morally irresponsible adds farming out junk food - and formerly drugs like booze and cigarettes; So the TV stations ARE run by people who have absolutely no scruples about selling death by drugs and eating; and if one were to watch 10 hours a week, that is $400 in lost income or wasted time.
The thing is that the TV stations are the worlds biggest liars - who deliberatly produce and put garbage to air, simply to keep people glued to it by stupifying them, so they are sucked in and watching all the adds..... adds to sell them lies - poison foods and insincere news, and rigged journalism.
I have gone forward in this huge fight; I now spend my free time, persuing worthwhile hobbies, such as reading, writing and producing my own music on instruments I have built myself....
Being spoon fed push button garbage in not entertainment - REAL entertainment is spending ones life in loving relationships - doing all the really amazing things "TOGETHER" - so RFUKT they and all their scams and greed and lies - The TV is rarely if ever turned on and I am creating a great life as I live it - minus their crap.
Getting out doing the gardening, visiting friends, participating in social groups - with real live people face to face, going riding our push bikes - and the best thing of the lot is that most people I know are fed up to the eyeballs with their TV's and all the crap on them...
Sooooo goodbye RFUKT, you can keep your lies and dirt.
Anonymous
Quote: Walk into a music store and steal a cd or dvd.
The comment is irrational, because you steal a physical item, which had direct input costs, at many levels, eg the store owner paid maoney for it; Whereas online material is all mostly inferior, replicated many times without control, without any input costs from the recording studios, one copy or a billion, no difference.
The copyright model is a con, and it is protectionism.
If I did some work, like install a kitchen sink, should I demand on going royalties, just like if someone spend the same amount of time, recording some material?
Anonymous
libraries should also be sued for allowing people to read for free.
qazwsx
whatever
Anonymous
i can see the future to the ISP's and internet now. One step closer to protection of illegal downloading and lots of people going to jail or getting a fine and didnt know how they got it. Do note that the younger generations are learning more and more about computers and will find flaws and can get other people into trouble with this.
yawn
These film companies should sue themselves for not protecting their content. they obviously can't be bothered and want the service Providers to do the job because it's in the too hard basket. like I have read in another article, People download Torrents because it is easy as 3 mouse clicks and your done. if you provide a fast reliable pay for download service at a cheap price. people will be happy to pay for that. if ISP's police downloading, people will find other ways to avoid detection. e.g the use of proxy servers. seriously the film studios are not embracing the new digital age. they are flogging a dead horse
Assumpt
Making early assumptions already?
mabinogi
"libraries should also be sued for allowing people to read for free."
Actually, copyright holders are compensated for items in public libraries.
It helps to actually know what you're talking about sometimes.
Anonymous
Actually Trevor, I think you're wrong when you say:
"I don't think they seriously believe digital piracy will ever stop by taking these actions"
Imagine what will happen if they win this case, and they can force your ISP to suspend your Internet access? They'll only need to do this to perhaps ten thousand people, and the majority of Australian Internet users will be too scared to torrent anything, for fear of losing their accounts.
Every open system will be vulnerable. Sure, people might use private trackers or greynets. But then filesharing becomes so difficult and underground that only the tech savvy will bother and/or understand how to do it.
Anonymous
If iinet is liable for illegal downloads, should Telstra (or any phone carrier) be held liable for allowing criminals to make phone calls?
Anonymous
"... I'd rather wait to see what Justice Cowdroy or our esteemed judges at the High Court (if it is taken up the judicial chain at the end of this case) have to say..." If you are going to write an opinion piece, at least have the wherewithall to offer one!! Heaven forbid you actaully do your own thinking.
Anonymous
Copyright infringement hmm - isn't this what we have done for years when we've record music from a radio station and play it back later .. or record a TV programme on our VCR and play it back at a later date to watch .. without any concerns at all being raised for years. All of a sudden AFACT decide they are going to make a stand and try and turn us into criminals .. they had better be careful that the same people they are targeting don't use the WWW to start campaigns, send e-mails, make websites to boycott the very films, records and songs, books they are trying to protect. What would happen to their precious advertising revenue when ordinarily everyday Australians get their backs up and refuse to watch any movies or listen to any music or buy any books of the companies involved in this action. Do they think that the film star, music artist or advertising dollar would stay with them for long if it was against popular opinion and lost public support. AFACT are biting the hand that feeds them !
Anonymous
Copyright infringement hmm - isn't this what we have done for years when we've record music from a radio station and play it back later .. or record a TV programme on our VCR and play it back at a later date to watch .. without any concerns at all being raised for years. All of a sudden AFACT decide they are going to make a stand and try and turn us into criminals .. they had better be careful that the same people they are targeting don't use the WWW to start campaigns, send e-mails, make websites to boycott the very films, records and songs, books they are trying to protect. What would happen to their precious advertising revenue when ordinary everyday Australians get their backs up and refuse to watch any movies or listen to any music or buy any books of the companies involved in this action. Do they think that the film star, music artist or advertising dollar would stay with them for long if it was against popular opinion and lost public support. AFACT and the companies involved are biting the very hand that feeds them !
Anonymous
Why should anyone respect the movie companies AFACT represents while they pay their actors tens of millions of dollars a movie and rake in billions of dollars worldwide in ticket sales, dvd sales and rentals, and merchandise. The movie companies hold an oligopoly on the entertainment business, and use the huge reserves of money at their disposal to attack anyone who threatens their profits, or they buy up any independent competition. They operate much like the tobacco companies of old, with no regard for the consumer, only insuring their continued profit margins to satisfy stakeholders. Governments around the world need to protect their citizens who only download for personal use, and only prosecute those who illegally sell the copyright material for personal profit.
eloquentloser
"Actually, copyright holders are compensated for items in public libraries."
..in a reasonable fashion. All AFACT have done is make themselves look like litigious idiots, much the same as the other entrenched business alliances overseas. No-one argues with a reasonable copyright regime, but this absolutist nonsense has gone too far.
Anonymous
That a case like this has got to this, shows how far behind our laws have become.
The federal and state authorties should have set out a clear set of steps so that the disconection of a user of the internet is in a seperate impartial bodys decision making pro cess such as the courts or watchdog and not left ad hoc to the isp or interest groups serving their own interist.
Given the size and scale of the internet this is a problem that is not going to be easy to solve and copy right is still copywright.
Anonymous
If AFACT wins, who is to say they do not have any right to sue Australia post, because some copyright infringement occurs in snail-mail. How about suing Subaru, because it is favorite car among pirates… It is a stupid lawsuit, no matter what you say to make it better, and then there is a judge, who might be OK for crimes in 1900 but to ask “what is P2P” and you are the judge in the case? That is the whole point. Police and judicial system is not ready for the crimes of 21st century.
Police should do their job online in the time when most crime occurs online. We cannot expect AFACT to “appoint” (force) civilian judge, jury and executioner just because police is not ready to deal with the crime in 21st century. Both Conroy with his stupid filter and AFACT are shifting the duty of policing from the police to ISPs. Police is there to do that job. If they are not ready to fight the crime in ever changing world, then, get somebody who can make them ready. Get rid of judges who have no idea what is P2P, get rid of police officers who cannot work their way around new technologies and get rid of people who want to undermine the police by forcing unwilling civilians to do the police job.
Anonymous
This argument is pretty thin IMO. The fact is, if some concerned body tells Australia Post this package on this day from this person will be full of drugs, then Australia Post will take action to investigate. ISPs are being provided the same detailed information and and effectively saying "Not our problem"
Regards
harry
Why should anyone respect the law? Politicians are not representing their constituents on this matter. Capitalists.
Anonymous
Yes this has bought things to peoples attention, but I do not beleive that is a good thing for AFACT. For the most part people either don't care or dissagree with AFACT. Personally I think AFACT should be disbanded purely for putting unskippable copyright blurbs on the DVDs I BUY, and the fact that their name stands for "Australian Federation Agains Copyright Theft"... you cannot steal copyright, only infringe it... and copyright infringement is NOT theft. Theft means that someone is being depribed of the item.
This is now and has always been about big content trying to hold onto an outmoded business model. Research has shown that piracy has very little actual impact on sales. Though with the number of bad movies made nowdays, I guess they are opposed to a try before you buy model. Don't forget they like to claim it is illegal to lend a DVD you've bought to others.
Anonymous
i would aggree that p2p is costing the entertainment industry money. however i do belive that the movie and music companies would have factored this cost into the cost of producing the products. furthur more what would be the problem with every isp in the country charging an additional $10 on every internet connection and then forwarding this money to a pool which is dibused by percentage of sales to the relevant industries. just like local rates
qazwsx
a win? nonsense, it just hightlights their arrogance.
gfrend
It's not just "film studios and TV stations" who are trying to bend things in their favour here. All the corporates who market content are trying this on, whether they may be involved in a particular court case or not.
One effect of this is that it is hard if not impossible for the voice of consumers to be heard in the mainstream media, because it seems that most of the media simply won't publish anything which differs from their corporate line.
Anonymous
Tell a child no! it only makes them want to do it more! controlling our internet content, downloads will only lead to further piracy people will find a way look at macrovision for example what a waste of money, it just made users more determined to crack it and we did!
the whole reason for piracy these days is most familys have young children who we cant take to the cinema due to noise factor and expense for a large family to go to a movie it can cost up to $150 at times, so why doesnt the movie providers get together and capitalise on this? create a website for viewing a new movie user pays or digitally braodcast new release movies to our homes via foxtel on demand, if this was freely available no one would bother pirating a new release in cinema movie!!! sure the cinemas would die out but with big screen technology and home cinemas people are not going to the movies as much as they used to. problem is the fat cats dont see an opptunity when they see it the would rather stick to the old buy my cd only! get with the times people!
Anonymous
What twaddle.
If there is
What twaddle.
If there is suspicion of the postal service being used for illegal drug trafficking, the police are called. They then investigate the accusation and, if there is reasonable grounds for a search, will open the package. If indeed the package contains illegal drugs, the police will then decide whether to stop the package, or allow it to be delivered in order to gain more evidence and/or arrest the recipient. Once arrests have been made, the accused stands trial in a court with a judge and jury and legal representation, and the evidence is presented before the defence takes the stand. If the accused is found guilty, the judge decides on an appropriate sentence, which of course can be appealed.
Organisations like AFART could (a) follow similar well established due process, or (b) try to bludgeon their own agenda by forcing the ISP to act as police, jury and judge.
We have a pretty good legal system in this country that is pretty good at seeing justice is done. We don't need some self-serving "industry" body to short-cut that system for their own purposes.
Cheers!
Anonymous
The world has changed, what needs to happen is online global release of content as it happens!
If you could let's say 'Download the latest episode of Heroes on the day it is first shown on TV from anywhere in the world through itunes (or even the studios own web site) That download was reasonably priced $1 and was quick to download (less than 15 minutes) I know people would be happy to pay and download. World wide ratings for the top shows per episode must peak over 30-50 million (that is a guess could be really wrong?) Let's be ultra conservative here and say using a our new model that each show makes 30 million per episode multiply that by the number of episodes say 21 and thats a whopping $630,000,000 surely you have to be happy with that ( add to this sales to TV stations around the world, not everybody has the net). Okay I concede that people will still download illegally. I feel that making a model like this would go a long way in reducing what's been happening online, while providing the consumer with what they want! and therein is the rub! What the consumer wants! Cost effective, quick access to global content with out breaking any laws.
Anonymous
Already counting your chickens before they hatch? What a lopsided article. Does not need to wait for a law suit to get people talking. Copyright has always been the grey area and argued millions of times. Remember the introduction of VHS recorders where people record TV shows or duplicate videos and shared? That was then but now, due to technology that is instant and readily available, the film and music industry is in panic mode and who ever they can find to save themselves, they'll make these people (iiNet) the scapegoats.
Tim
pretty thin? So if a company exec shows up at the post office and says "we think John Smith has been stealing shoes from us so open all his mail and see if there's shoes in there" you'd be okay with that? I damn well know I wouldn't be. That's what iiNet's defence has been all along - get the police to ask them and they'll look but not just on the whim of some corporation. To me that's the real point here - if AFACT have evidence why isn't it going to police? Is it that AFACT's evidence gathering is illegal? Who knows.
lightning
An ISP is simply a service provider, just like a power company.A service provider supplies a service to a customer nothing more.
Is a power company to be held responsible for what people(end users) do with the power that they provide. Should a power company be charged because somebody uses the power provided to run a hydroponics system to illegally produce cannabis? Or a water company be charged for "allowing" the water to be used for illegal purposes?
What people choose to use a provided service for is not the responsibility of the service provider it is the responsibility of the end user as an individual to abide by the law. A hardware store is not charged because they sold a can of spray paint and somebody chose to use that can of paint to create graffiti on a public building. A fertiliser company is not charged for providing a bag of fertiliser to a customer who then turns that fertiliser into a bomb.
Large corporations use their financial muscle and paid political influence to force laws on the people in order to increase their profits.
We no longer live in a Democracy ie rule by the people.
We now live in a Corpocracy where corporations rule and the people are just cannon fodder used to create profits.
Corporations are nothing more than Bullies and that is AFACT!
Anonymous
Well, posties are not allowed to intercept it. They can inform the police of their findings. Intercepting is the POLICE job. If they did intercept it, they would be breaking the law. IINET did what any of us is required to do, pass the information to the police. If the police is not ready to deal with the problems forwhatever the reason is, we should not allow CORPORATIONS to install their "civil" police, and to sue whoever they want if they do not perform what CORPORATION is asking them to.
BTW I wrote the post you replied to.
Anonymous
If AFACT win they will still not get what they are really after. For arguments sake if my ISP disconnect me because I was pirating material I would just get another ISP and continue sharing. What AFACT should be doing is ensuring that the infringers cannot get an Internet connection at all, and the only way they can do that is by prosecuting the indivdual, unless of cause they would prefer to sue every single ISP for each and every infringement that is commited. That would not only cost a lot more money than they are losing through piracy but also take a VERY long time.
The only winners would be the Solicitors and Barristers. They win no matter what the outcome of any case.
Anonymous
Meanwhile local TV Station around the globe would be going out of business. They would not have much content to use, after all I would not watch on broadcast TV what I had already paid to download. What would be the point. Also why would the local stations pay a premium for content that has already been seen by may people ? Fewer people would be watching and this would effect their advertising revenue, thus causing them to make economies (read job loses) to retain a profit, in turn the advertising companies would also lose revenue (more job loses), it is a never ending circle.
The only way they can realistically counter this is to release the content simaltaniously to all the local TV stations globally at the same time. Leave it up to the stations to decide on when they want to show it.
John
If An ISP is going to be prosecuted for allowing users to download and share copyrighted material than companies like Sony, Panasonic, JVC etc for also be prosecuted for make DVD and VCRs to allow people to copy copyrighted material, and companies that make blank DVD or VCR tapes. Lets not for get computer manufactures like Dell, Acer, Toshiba who make the devices that allow people to access copyrighted material and then download it. They better also prosecute Telstra for providing the lines that allow people to connect to the internet and of course there are the modem manufacturers to target as well.
These companies will never be prosecuted because they are too big and can afford good lawyers.
If AFACT are really serious then the only ones to target are the individuals who are engaging in an illegal practice, not all the companies in between the are providing the equipment or service that is being used to perform copyright theft by some.
AFACT will not target the individuals because:
a. it too hard
b. there is no chance of recovering money or costs.
c. it would clog the court system up for many years with people denying they did it.
d. there is not enough publicity in it for AFACT
Anonymous
Does it matter if local TV stations go out of business? There used to be places that made horse buggies, but the auto industry grew up around new tech, and the horse buggy companies either changed with the times or went out of business. There used to be companies that made gas lights, but then the electricity industry grew up and the gas-light companies either changed with the times or went out of business. What we see with AFART are a heavy-weight gang of incumbents who have the money and political clout to influence the law in an attempt to maintain the status quo, rather than take advantage of change and moving on with the times. Their bullying actions are shameful.
Anonymous
yes,i agree with one of the previous posters; pretty weak. Particularly when a personal opinion shows up as a news article as if fact.
If they need a Public Relations article like this, i believe it is indicative that they really have little to stand on.
Ethical or legal issues around copyright are a completely separate matter to the responsibility they are trying to shift to another industry, and to the people.
I personally have an issue in having to fund my ISP to act as Judge, Jury, and Executioner for another industry.
Will this be one of AFACT's last bit of clawing and clutching. Even if they win on a technicality, i think they have created a lot of enemies and will for a long while continue to face a return of their own dished out music. weather they like it or not.
For your information, i do not download movies, or illegal software.
Anonymous
> I'm not suggesting that I agree with the arguments on either side of the case
stop being a bloody fence sitter! every internet user knows this case is rubbish, downloading wont stop, and the studios should have adapted to the online business model years ago. to you i say grow some friggin balls and have an opinion!
Swampash
My policy is, every time I see a "DOWNLOADING IS STEALING" message, you know the sort of thing that comes on at maximum audio volume and that can't be skipped, on a DVD that I legitimately own, the movie industry owes me another movie. Displaying such a message is regarded as agreement to these terms.
Anonymous
IMO i believe there IS no debate on this.
Is it the purpose of an ISP to be the police? In my estimation, no.
According to current telco law, clearly no. The mechanism under rule of law is they pass any criminal investigation onto the appropriate police department or court, and then act on whatever ruling emerges.
it is not in their remit to judge their customer (disconnection), whatever philosophical feeling might be had about acting on infringement notes that AFACT has essentially bombarded iinet with.
Id be leery of responding to a spambomb campaign too, over 1000 notices in 7 days to me isnt politely requesting 'can you pass this on to the courts and follow their direction' but jumping up and down and having a hissy fit like a toddler DEMANDING attention.
On a related note there i'm also interested to hear whether other ISPs have been similarly bombarded or if the infringement campaign was a specific tactic engineered against iinet by AFACT prior to coming to court. if the latter my estimation of AFACT can only sink further - if thats possible - as they are pretty damn close to the bottom of the barrel already.
Anonymous
i spoke to a lady the other day who went over her download qouta because she learnt about bitTorrent from the iiNET case and cant stop downloading things
Bittorrent
C'mon people see the bigger picture here. File sharing or "stealing" as AFACT would call it, is the killer app. (apart from porn) that drives the computer, cd, dvd and internet business. If the movie studios found a way to successfully curtail content theft, which then spread to other media such as illegal software and music files it would seriously harm many other businesses and damage global trade.
Anonymous
Mate, you are 150% correct.
The sad thing is that FOREIGN STUDIOS are TELLING THE AUSTRALIAN NATION what to do and control the internet like KGB or CIA style.And this is only the begining.
Is the Australian Prime Minister be told what to do or not. Kevin are you going to protect CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THIS COUNTRY? Or keep the USA to tell us what to do?
Is police going to be on every street and house to stop people passing magazines purchased in a newsagency?
Again and again, stop CHARGING 29.99 for a DVD !!!!!!!!! in Australia.
Look what Microsoft is FINALLY doing..........launching WIN 7 for 40 dollars to students.......finally and not 700 !
I reapeat...........CIVIL LIBERTIES and COMUNIST state control,WE MUST NOT PERMIT THIS !
Anonymous
With downloading of TV shows, if the free to air stations would show these programs to their end and or at a descent time then people would not download them and of course there is the 19 minutes of adds in an hour program we have to sit through, what pain that is.
Next comes the software applications, how many millions of $$$$ do these company's have to make from the same piece of software.
Last, the movies, well $16.00 to see a movie wtf should only be $10.00 at the most.
Dan
The real debate this case could open up is whether copyright law in its current form correctly balances the interests of creators in profiting from their works and the interests of society in making creative works part of the common good.
Many folks will ask themselves whether the real issue isn't piracy but the state of copyright law itself.
Anonymous
If they wanted to raise awareness/debate of the issue - they could have prosecuted one single random average individual for copyright violation.
That would have very quickly slowed/stopped the majority of average users and got lots and lots of press coverage.
By going for iiNet, they're just hoping to make a few extra million (billion?) dollars.
Anonymous
Copyright is there to protect and encourage creative endeavour.
Attacking the internet (or ISP's) will do greater harm to creative endeavour and progress (of humanity, technology art or money).
So at the heart, it's bad governing to allow such laws and action to be taken. Don't cut off whole arm if you've got a single wart on one finger.
Anonymous
Copyright is there to protect the profits of the studios. If it was about encouraging artistic innovation they would pay a higher rate of royalties to the artists.
Unfortunately, the Howard government sold the country out in the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. A fundamental and non-negotiable cornerstone of that agreement was protection of US tv, filma and music interests.
In what other area of endeavour does the government do the dirty work? Copyright is a sacred cow for the studios that pay enormous sums of money to US political parties and candidates - and the piper was paid by the demand that Australia protect these US interests.
It has nothing to do with the welfare of the artisis.
Mr Steve
The result of this will be iiNet will be off the hook, the justice department will get a cell for investigating and onforwarding AFACT demands (note the investigating - innocent until PROVEN guilty), it'll never be able to be resourced appropriately, it'll end up resourced at least in part by the movie studios, the investigating part will be removed and we'll be back where we started - only the AFACT/Justice Department unsubstantiated claims and notices will APPEAR to hold more weight to both the end user as well as the ISP's who will treat them with more respect. And the movie studios will get what they want, despite still being hearsay and presumption of guilt instead of innocence.
Anonymous
For a $3-5 fee I'll happily download a movie and watch it at home. Just like MP3s.
Boomshanka
Why is AFACT going through the courts to sue iiNet instead of going to iiNet's bank and demanding they give them the money directly? Oh that's right, because they need to prove them guilty in a court of law. So why don't they do the same with the records obtained (I assume legally obtained?) of alleged copyright infringement to get the individual charged rather than demanding iiNet terminate their internet access on an accusation?
Crap analogy I know, but still this just stinks so much of bully stand over tactics to get what they want their way rather than do it the right way.
gfrend
It's actually worse than that, @Tim 10:16.
The comparison would be if a company exec went to the post office and said "We think John Smith may have been stealing shoes from us, so we demand that you cut off all mail deliveries to and from him forever".
Brad
I fail to see how an ISP should be responsible for preventing the theft of copyrighted material. Do the companies who make CD-Rs, DVD-Rs, cassette tapes etc also have to prevent them from being used to transfer copyrighted content? Do the companies who make video cameras have to make sure who can't use to boot leg films?
Post new comment